Public health experts have accused the Covid Inquiry of ‘bias’, saying the failure to investigate the impact of lockdown makes it unfit for purpose.
More than 50 scholars and academics from some of the UK’s top universities have written to inquiry chairman Baroness Heather Hallett urging her to ‘address its apparent biases, assumptions and impartiality’.
And they accuse it of ‘not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic’, including whether measures such as lockdowns and restrictions on mass gatherings were ‘appropriate’.
Letter co-author Dr Kevin Bardosh, director of think-tank Collateral Global, accused the inquiry of handing ‘softball’ questions to architects of government policy, while ‘grilling’ witnesses who were opposed to mass restrictions on public freedoms.
More than 50 scholars and academics from some of the UK’s top universities have written to inquiry chairman Baroness Heather Hallett (pictured) urging her to ‘address its apparent biases, assumptions and impartiality’
And they accuse it of ‘not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic’, including whether measures such as lockdowns and restrictions on mass gatherings were ‘appropriate’. Pictured: Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021
Dr Kevin Bardosh accused the inquiry of handing ‘softball’ questions to architects of government policy, while ‘grilling’ witnesses who were opposed to mass restrictions on public freedoms. Pictured: Matt Hancock leaving the UK Covid-19 Inquiry last year
He told the Mail: ‘The inquiry is not seriously questioning their (scientific advisers’) assessments around the justification for their policies.
‘The inquiry is not interested in whether these policy decisions were good for the country, and that seems a mistake.’
The terms of reference setting out the scope of the inquiry were established by the Government following public pressure for an inquiry.
But Dr Bardosh accused Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, of being more ‘obsessed with reading out swear words in private WhatsApp messages than getting to the substance’ of decision-making.
He said: ‘He seems to be concerned a lot with political theatre and having these ‘gotcha’ moments.’
Cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora, who signed the letter, described the inquiry as ‘completely useless’.
He added: ‘It is structured to assess blame and not the scientific basis of the decision making. That’s the difference between lawyers and scientists.
‘The decisions made during the pandemic were clearly wrong – ‘how’ wrong has to be a scientific assessment.
‘The current framework for the current inquiry is a legal one – totally unsuited to addressing the key questions.
But Dr Bardosh accused Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, of being more ‘obsessed with reading out swear words in private WhatsApp messages than getting to the substance’ of decision-making. Pictured: A sign near the entrance of the Covid Inquiry
Cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora, who signed the letter, described the inquiry as ‘completely useless’. Pictured: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
‘We’re not interested in WhatsApp gossip. We have to learn from the past – it’s not about the apportioning of blame but simply how to do better next time.’
The inquiry began hearing evidence in June last year, with testimony from the likes of prime minister Rishi Sunak, Covid-era premier Boris Johnson, and ex-health secretary Matt Hancock, as well as a host of the most senior scientific and medical advisers to the Government.
The bill for the inquiry has already topped £78 million up to the end of last year, according to its latest financial report.
In its letter, the group said: ‘The inquiry originated in legal petitions brought by bereaved family groups. Yet there has been little opportunity for petitions to be brought by those who have suffered from the negative effects of pandemic policy decisions.
‘This is preventing a more holistic assessment of impacts on population health and wellbeing. This lack of neutrality appears to have led to biassed reasoning and predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.’
It said the inquiry, which is due to run until 2026, has ‘adopted a legal format that prevents a systematic evaluation of the evidence by biomedical and social scientists on the harms of restrictions to the British public’ and is instead ‘focused on who did or said what, rather than asking fundamental scientific questions’.
It said the probe ‘appears unsuited to the task’ of investigating ‘the interplay between harms, benefits and best practice’ in order to prepare for the next pandemic.
The bill for the inquiry has already topped £78 million up to the end of last year, according to its latest financial report. Pictured: General view of a NHS hospital ward
Latest figures show there have been more than 230,000 covid-related deaths in the UK.
An inquiry spokesman said: ‘The Inquiry was established in June 2022 and is entirely independent. Baroness Hallett, chair of the Inquiry, has said repeatedly that she will not reach any conclusions until she has considered all of the evidence; that includes the written evidence.
‘The Inquiry does not act on assumptions and has called expert witnesses who question the use of lockdowns and other interventions, as well as experts who advised on the imposition of lockdowns.
‘The Inquiry will consider important issues such as the impact of lockdowns, key scientific and policy questions as well as population health and wellbeing in forthcoming modules. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website and we will report during the lifespan of the Inquiry, with the first report scheduled for this summer.’